Mitsubishi L 200 1996 vs Ford Ranger 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.0 - 2.5 | 2.3 - 4.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 87 - 132 HP | 84 - 207 HP | |
| Torque: | 154 - 240 NM | 195 - 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 23.7 seconds | 12.5 - 13.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 8.9 - 10.2 | |
|
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Ground clearance: | 215 - 235 mm (8.5 - 9.3 inches) | 203 - 205 mm (8 - 8.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mitsubishi L 200 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.64 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.63 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller. Mitsubishi L 200 is 44 cm shorter than the Ford Ranger, 13 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1500 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 12.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`690 | ~ 2`986 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4600 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
| |